This past weekend we saw six more qualifier take place around the world. Three of which were in North America (Cascadia, South West, and Great Plains) and three in Europe (Italy, Hungary, and Spain). Since the NAH constantly updates the newly qualified teams, I think I’ll start with the teams heading to Padova.

Bike Polo made it’s way to prime time TV again! A few years back the CSI: NY film crew visited New York Bike Polo (check that footage out HERE) and now Louis CK did a little bike polo filming for his amazing show Louie. Thank you New York Bike Polo for getting this sport on the boob-tube!

This past weekend (5-10 and 5-11) we saw three big qualifiers happen around the world. There could have even been more, but it’s hard to keep up with all the European qualifiers. The three I do know about were held in Germany, France, and Mexico. The German and French teams were competing for their spots at the European Championship in Padova, Itally, while Mexico competed for the first time as it’s own region in the NAH. Here are the results from three qualifiers:

This week the NAH sprung a brand new version of the ruleset on us with little explanation as to what made it different from the v4.2 that preceded it. The only information they gave us was that they needed to “adjust for some formatting errors” and release “the Appendix A that Section 3 refers to.” While the Appendix A is pretty self-explanatory (give it a read HERE), we figured we would help you see the changes in the v4.3 of the ruleset. To follow along, check out v4.3 HERE.

After talking to the Head of Reffing Committy, Joe Rstom, about the changes, it turns out that these changes aren’t actually that important to the game play (outside of the Appendix A, that is). Just to calm your worrying mind, I figure I will let you know what changed anyway. So here it is:

The “§1.3 – Goal Judge” section had a typo in the v4.2 ruleset that made the numbers jump from §1.3.2 to §1.3.4. The NAH dummies had to fix that mistake!

In the section “§4.8 – Shifted Goal Position”, they made ANOTHER numbering error. In v4.2, the subsection for §4.8.2 was listed as §4.8.3 instead of §4.8.2.1, like it is in the v4.3.

For “§10.3 – Interference”, the NAH fixed some wording in the §10.3.2 section. In v4.2, §10.3.2 reads: “In the case of the ball leaving the immediate vicinity of the player in possession but having not been touched by any other player, the player considered in possession according to §5.1.1 can not be engaged physically if they have forfeited pursuit of the ball. An opponent may only engage in physical contact with the player in possession if they continue to advance towards the ball.” And now in v4.3, §10.3.2 reads: “In the case of the ball leaving the immediate vicinity of the player in possession according to §5.1.1 but having not been touched by any other player, the player in possession can not be engaged physically if they have forfeited pursuit of the ball. An opponent may only engage in physical contact with the player in possession if they continue to advance towards the ball.”

And that’s it. Pretty exciting huh?

The most important thing to take away from v4.3 is the addition of Appendix A. It simplifies and uniforms the qualifier formatting so that tournament organizers have one less thing to worry about when hosting these important tournaments. It’s great for players to know too so they can make sure they are playing games for the appropriate amount of time.

Educate yourself! That’s the most important thing for the grow of hardcourt bike polo.

In an attempt to get European hardcourt bike polo organized under a governing body, several players from clubs all over Europe put their names on the ballot to be one of the lucky nine on the first European Hardcourt Bike Polo Association committee. Yesterday the final votes were tallied and these are the faces of change for European hardcourt bike polo! Please join me in welcoming the new committee: